Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
Yes, pilot's original claim was, "Let's not use innuendo, but instead use the 'recorded' words of an individual who has been caught in so many carefully documented unequivocally totally erroneous and contradictory 'best truths that she can think of', that she has been called by many who came in contact with her before during and after her unanimous conviction, as a being a classic pathological liar."

Now pilot seems to want to move the goalposts (something he asks that we not do) and try to change his claim to a simpler one: a few people called Amanda some kind of liar. That's fine, as long as he either withdraws or supports the rest of his claim about why some people called Amanda a liar.
Click to expand...

LOL, exactly! Pilot's swift retreat is noted. I guess too late he realised that when it comes to well documented erroneous and contradictory claims it's the guys he sides with that win the competition hands down :)
 
well i've followed the case on & off in my mind theres no doubt this pair were involved.

knoxs gift statement really seals her fate. Its not difficult when your innocent to convey a coherent & full account of what you were doing on the night your housemate was murdered. It is however difficult when your guilty, the speed of RS capitulation when faced with a few questions says it all.

The oldest police trick in the book is to say they have info on you and see if you confess or start changing your story. When your innocent its easy to tell the truth and stick to it. I've had it done to me by the police. So did the barman knox incriminated but he didnt find it hard to tell the truth.

Anyone falling for knoxs confused act is nieve in the extreme. I would bet anyone who works in the criminal justice system won't be so nieve and expect the conviction to be upheld.
 
Last edited:
yeti101 said:
well i've followed the case on & off in my mind theres no doubt this pair were involved.

knoxs gift statement really seals her fate. Its not difficult when your innocent to convey a coherent & full account of what you were doing on the night your housemate was murdered. It is however difficult when your guilty, the speed of RS capitulation when faced with a few questions says it all.

The oldest police trick in the book is to say they have info on you and see if you confess or start changing your story. When your innocent its easy to tell the truth and stick to it. I've had it done to me by the police. So did the barman knox incriminated but he didnt find it hard to tell the truth.

Anyone falling for knoxs confused act is nieve in the extreme. I would bet anyone who works in the criminal justice system won't be so nieve and expect the conviction to be upheld.
Click to expand...

Welcome to JREF. :D

The belief that innocent people can simply talk to the police and clear things up is common, but dead wrong. A law professor explains why:

 
hi , i cant watch youtube videos at work. Not being able to give a full & coherent account is incredibly incriminating. Its the first huge red flag about this pair and their involvement. It just gets worse for them on the morning they phoned the police.

I'll be shocked if they get off.
 
yeti101 said:
hi , i cant watch youtube videos at work. Not being able to give a full & coherent account is incredibly incriminating. Its the first huge red flag about this pair and their involvement. It just gets worse for them on the morning they phoned the police.

I'll be shocked if they get off.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Lothian prove your point or ET is waiting

Lothian please prove your point with real facts that AK and RS killed Meredith.
At my last post there was nothing to point AK and RS had killed, or had anything to do with the Murder of Meredith.
My last post was to point out, "that the police force broke every rule in good policeman work", which has tar the hole POLICE FORCE in Italy.
I am sure that there are very good policemen/women in Italy, Would I go back to visit Italy, Yes.
If you cannot prove your point please phone ET, I am sure he tell you to ring home:D:D:D
 
RWVBWL said:
Why did Dr. Stefanoni get special permission to collect evidence, test this same evidence, and then also participate in prosecutorial meetings that put the case together that convicted Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.
Click to expand...

It's just logical. Can you imagine trying to run a railroad with all the cars on separate tracks. :rolleyes:
 
zeb said:
Lothian please prove your point with real facts that AK and RS killed Meredith.
At my last post there was nothing to point AK and RS had killed, or had anything to do with the Murder of Meredith.
My last post was to point out, "that the police force broke every rule in good policeman work", which has tar the hole POLICE FORCE in Italy.
I am sure that there are very good policemen/women in Italy, Would I go back to visit Italy, Yes.
If you cannot prove your point please phone ET, I am sure he tell you to ring home:D:D:D
Click to expand...

Er, this has nothing to do with this thread. This is about libel.
 
Last edited:
zeb said:
Lothian please prove your point with real facts that AK and RS killed Meredith.
At my last post there was nothing to point AK and RS had killed, or had anything to do with the Murder of Meredith.
My last post was to point out, "that the police force broke every rule in good policeman work", which has tar the hole POLICE FORCE in Italy.
I am sure that there are very good policemen/women in Italy, Would I go back to visit Italy, Yes.
If you cannot prove your point please phone ET, I am sure he tell you to ring home:D:D:D
Click to expand...
If you are not familiar with the facts of this case I suggest you look them up. It is not my job to educate you but you really should read up on them so that you are not shocked when the appeal correctly withdraws the previous lenient sentence and replaces it with one of life.

Your apparent levity, inane reference to ET and overuse of smiles demonstrates you are not here to discuss this subject seriously and as Matthew points out are simply trolling.
 
yeti101 said:
hi , i cant watch youtube videos at work. Not being able to give a full & coherent account is incredibly incriminating. Its the first huge red flag about this pair and their involvement. It just gets worse for them on the morning they phoned the police.

I'll be shocked if they get off.
Click to expand...

They did give an account of their whereabouts to police (that they were at Sollecito's apartment all night), and stuck to that account until the night of the 5th November. On that night, police firstly told Sollecito that they had evidence placing Knox at the murder scene, and got him to admit that he couldn't be 100% certain that she hadn't crept out of the house while he was sleeping, participated in the murder, then crept back in again.

With that, the police interrogated Knox. They apparently told her that Sollecito had dropped his alibi for her (which was semantically true, but not true in any reasonable sense), and that they had evidence placing her at the crime scene (false). They had evidently decided that her text communication with Lumumba on the evening of the 1st constituted an arrangement to meet up, and thus concluded that Knox and Lumumba had been participants in entering the cottage and murdering Meredith. They told Knox that she was probably suppressing traumatic memories of that night, and that if she tried hard she might remember "the truth". This element of the story is confirmed by the evidence of the police's interpreter, Anna Donnino, who said that she'd illustrated how tramatic memories can be blocked by citing an example of when she'd broken her ankle and subsequently remembered nothing of the incident in which it was broken.

So Knox was faced with four elements: 1) Sollecito wasn't vouching for her; 2) the police had solid evidence placing her at the murder scene; 3) the police were certain she'd met up with Lumumba, and that he was part of the "murder party"; and 4) Knox was likely suppressing her memory of events due to traumatic stress. My opinion is that she was very likely told that if she "remembered" letting Lumumba into the cottage, and then if she further "remembered" that Lumumba alone had killed Meredith while she had no part in the planning or execution of the killing, she would be protected by the police and would be essentially "in the clear".

I truly think that when Knox made the 1.45am statement, she believed that she was still giving nothing more than witness evidence against Lumumba - whom the police had convinced her was the killer of Meredith. I think she thought that the very worst that the police/prosecutors might do would be to prosecute her for some form of minor involvement in the preamble to the murder (but that even that was a minor possibility). When she was kept in custody overnight, she apparently expressed surprise, and was apparently told (mendaciously) that she was being kept in custody for her own protection.

It's clear that by the time Knox wrote her "gift" statement, she was a) very confused, and b) doubting that she was ever anywhere else than Sollecito's apartment all evening. It's clear that she was still having problems reconciling these beliefs with what she was told was solid evidence placing her at the murder scene. I think she had no idea that the police were lying to her, or that they would even employ such a tactic (even though it's legal).


By the way, how does it "get worse" for Knox and Sollecito when they phoned the police at lunchtime on the 2nd? It reads to me like a natural escalation of concern, culminating in a call to relatives for advice and then to the police. Bear in mind that we have the benefit of hindsight in knowing that Meredith's body was lying behind her locked bedroom door - if Knox and Sollecito were not involved in the murder, there was no way they could have known that fact at the time, and only a miniscule chance that they would even have thought it possible.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
I'll post on topic exactly the way I see fit, and will not be dictated to by you or anyone else.
Click to expand...


Not this ludicrous belligerence again?

You're merely being asked if you're going to post anything approaching an argument about the case which is the topic of this thread. You can answer "yes" or "no", or you can simply ignore the question. Nobody's "dictating" anything to anyone - to assume that might be construed as having authority-related issues...
 
welcome

yeti101 said:
hi , i cant watch youtube videos at work. Not being able to give a full & coherent account is incredibly incriminating. Its the first huge red flag about this pair and their involvement. It just gets worse for them on the morning they phoned the police.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum. Raffaele backed up Amanda's account in front of Judge Matteini on 8 November 2007.
 
lionking said:
I take that as a "no I don't own this forum". Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

See this is the thing I can't get my head about, Lionking. I actually often respect your stances in other threads, even if we don't always agree, you generally come across as highly rational and your posts well thought out, but not here.

Here you are acting exactly the opposite, you make claims and refuse to back them up, when asked to discuss the evidence you become evasive and resistant, you are acting very much like the conspriacists that you tackle in the CT Forums do.

I can't figure this out. For you to accept that the court got it right it means that you must believe the prosecution's claims beyond a reasonable doubt, that is what the law requires for a guilty verdict. Surely if you believed that the evidence supports the prosecution's case to the point that there can be no reasonable doubt, then discussing that evidence with me should not only be a slam dunk for you, but should either make me agree with you, or look like an irrational CT myself. Therefore it baffles me that you won't try and convince me of why your belief should stand.

I know the claims of those that support innocence, I know the data they use, I can even construct a timeline from their work, one that seems to make a lot of sense. I can't do the same from those that support guilt because the majority of them simply won't talk to me and tell me what they believe, all I see if snide comments and refusals to engage. What am I suppost to think?

I have tried working through sites like TJMK, but it because very apparent quite quickly that most of the arguments presented there are out of date and were discredited in the first court, or simply weren't even used there, something that means I don't want to struggle through 40k previous posts in the other two threads either. I also see a lot of pseudo-science analysis of language and other things no self respecting skeptic should want to be closely associated with, but what I fail to find is solid evidence.

This worries me, and when I ask those that support guilt for that evidence and they basically tell me to go away it honestly doesn't leave a lot of position for trusting that the courts got it right.

So please, at least explain why I should actually consider that you have a valid position and aren't simply trolling when you refuse to even discuss the evidence with me?
 
LondonJohn said:
They did give an account of their whereabouts to police ...QUOTE]

They couldnt tell the police what they were doing while in RS' house. Then RS decided to lie about what he was doing. Its not hard to tell the truth when your innocent. Knox also claims she couldnt remember what she was doing. :rolleyes:

For me to believe that i would need a medical diagnosis of some sort of amnesia condition. Along the lines of the character from the movie memento.

The morning of the phone calls is very revealing. Not remebering the phone call to her mom , even her own mother couldnt believe that she couldn't remember it. Neither can I
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
yeti101 said:
well i've followed the case on & off in my mind theres no doubt this pair were involved.
Click to expand...


Then you no doubt will be able to provide a detailed description of what happened. You can start with what time Meredith was killed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom